Social Science – Philosophy

Consider Thomas Nagel’s article, “Moral Luck”. State the Control Principle.State the conditions for moral luck and how moral luck results from the Control Principle.Describe Nagel’s four kinds of moral luck. Give examples for how each of these wouldviolate the Control Principle. When viewing Nagel’s position as a response to Kantianethics, what is the most fundamental way in which we should evaluate moral judgments?Moreover, how does moral luck affect consequentialist judgments? Provide scenarios forinstances in which moral luck might complicate both Kantian and consequentialistjudgments (Make sure your scenarios include resolutions.) Must be 1000-1500 words no block quotes! Mla cited see

In this selection from Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, we are presented with his criterion persons and identity. Do we have a reason to believe that Locke’s criteria for personal identity still apply if we downloaded into a computer? Are you still yourself if you exist only within the confines of a computer program? On the part of Locke, this is an attempt to answer the question of whether there is such a thing as the immortal and immaterial soul. ‘Soul’ should be understood in the same sense here as it is discussed throughout Christianity. What is entailed by this theory is an explanation for memory, and consequentially, consciousness. Such a theory allows for us to account for why each of us can exist from moment to moment and still be identified as ourselvesPrompt: Give exposition to Locke’s position, and then consider the example of Prince and the Cobbler that he provides. Should we accept Locke’s argument that there is a distinction between persons and bodies? Do we require a unified substance, or third unifying substance to be who we are?Required Reading: John Locke, “Of Identity and Diversity” (PDF); Namita Nimbalkar, “John Locke On Personal Identity”Recommended Reading: SEP – Supplement to John Locke, “Personal Identity” (Weblink)Remember: A response consists of more than one word or simply agreeing. Please cite all passages in the text (including page number) and cite all outside information according to MLA guidelines. Your answer should have AT LEAST 3 responses (possibly more), aside from your original post. You will always be required to create a post responding to the discussion prompt (300-600 words), before viewing any responses of other students

Consider what was discussed previously regarding both utilitarian perspectives for moral action and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Now suppose (as I am sure has happened to you many times) that a homeless person asks for change or a dollar as you walk by them on the street. Now consider Nagel’s article on “Moral Luck”. Does giving a dollar to the homeless person increase overall happiness or achieve some other universally acceptable moral aim? Consider also that some interpretations of utilitarianism suggest that we should give everything except those basic things we need to survive.Or do we in fact have a duty, as the Categorical Imperative may or may not suggest, giving the person a dollar? Because we do not always have access to the antecedent conditions which may have place the homeless person in that position, are we in fact morally capable of making a judgment as to whether or not we should give them a dollar?For instance, what if this person has a drug or alcohol addiction which was largely the cause for them to start living on the street initially? Furthermore, what if this is the last dollar they needed to purchase more drugs which in fact result in an overdose? Are you directly morally responsible for this person’s death? And if we do give them the dollar, are we still obliged to consider what it is they aim to do with it? (Recall here the Case of the Inquiring Murderer.)Briefly outline what the Kantian and consequentialist position might be for this set of circumstances and provide reasons as to why we ought to prefer one over the other. Remember to consider the four kinds of luck that Nagel describes and how they might apply to your proposed solution.Required Reading: Thomas Nagel “Moral Luck” (PDF)Recommended Reading: “Moral Luck”, Introduction & Section 1 – Focus on Nagel’s formulation of moral luck; not Williams. < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/ >Remember: A response consists of more than one word or simply agreeing. Please cite all passages in the text (including page number) and cite all outside information according to MLA guidelines. Your answer should have AT LEAST 3 responses (possibly more), aside from your original post. You will always be required to create a post responding to the discussion prompt (300-600 words), before viewing any responses of other students

Are we consequentialists in our everyday activities?With regards to what Mill has explained in the selection from his work Utilitarianism, consider the question of whether or not people are utilitarians in this sense of term. Not so much that they want to increase pleasure (whether only for themselves or others), but rather do persons act in such a manner that promotes utility (or, efficiency and expediency) for the largest possible amount of people? For instance, consider the firefighter who has a choice to save one child or to save three children. The firefighter does not know any of the children, nor does he know anything about them. But it is reasonable to assume that they would choose to save the three children over the one child. Why? Because that is simply what it would be to fulfill the role of an effective firefighter! However, this is only one instance; overall, do we have reason to believe that happiness for the greatest amount of people over the longest amount of time is in fact the sole criterion of morality as Mill suggests?Give an exposition of the argument that Mill provides in the assigned selection. This should include his formulation of the Principle of Utility, on which his argument relies. Then, answer the following question: Why should moral actions just result in maximizing happiness?Relying on this exposition, and your answer to the previous question, explain how people act, in both day to day and extraordinary circumstances, considering only the consequences of actions.Required Reading: J.S. Mill “Utilitarianism” (Selection) (Textbook Pg. 358 – 356)Recommended Reading: “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy” – Section 2.0, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7 & 2.11 < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ >